3 ms·

Except for that "reasonable restrictions" are rather like abortion regulations; they're obviously driven by ideologues with no technical expertise, specifically

Except for that "reasonable restrictions" are rather like abortion regulations; they're obviously driven by ideologues with no technical expertise, specifically to make the exercise of a right more burdensome, like "waiting periods" for existing gun owners, restricting or permitting models by name, or regulating cosmetic features (oh no, a scary telescoping stock!). If they can be intentionally unclear, so much the better (for instance, what is a "secure container" for the purposes of firearms transport? Is a magazine that fits 10 of one caliber and 11 of another forbidden? Is a magazine "fixed" if it requires a tool to detach, but can be detached in under 5 seconds? What does it mean to be "ballistically similar" to a banned model of bullet?). The lack of good faith by restrictionists and their explicit attempts to de-normalize lawful firearm ownership understandably makes some reluctant to engage with them.

johnny99 12y ago
I sort of agree with you but I think you're overdoing it. There are reasonable restrictionists, and reasonable restrictions. Like even most gun fans agree fully automatic weapons and RPGs shouldn't be privately owned. High-capacity magazines are more debatable and there's no clear line--but 50 or 100-round magazines, I think there's a reasonable argument for banning them. Focusing on cosmetics is silly, and some advocates of restrictions would just as soon see all guns gone, but I think most people just want to see common sense applied.
- Crito 12y ago
  > "Like even most gun fans agree fully automatic weapons and RPGs shouldn't be privately owned." I think you have not talked to many gun fans. Exceptionally few crimes have been committed with legally and privately owned fully automatic weapons, so I see absolutely no reason why those laws should be revised. Your issue is with the illegally owned guns, and I think that few gun fans would object to enforcement of those laws. I cannot think of any crimes committed with a legally owned RPG. Clearly the regulation for RPGs that is already in place is sufficient.

johnny99 12y ago

I sort of agree with you but I think you're overdoing it. There are reasonable restrictionists, and reasonable restrictions. Like even most gun fans agree fully automatic weapons and RPGs shouldn't be privately owned. High-capacity magazines are more debatable and there's no clear line--but 50 or 100-round magazines, I think there's a reasonable argument for banning them. Focusing on cosmetics is silly, and some advocates of restrictions would just as soon see all guns gone, but I think most people just want to see common sense applied.

Crito 12y ago
> "Like even most gun fans agree fully automatic weapons and RPGs shouldn't be privately owned." I think you have not talked to many gun fans. Exceptionally few crimes have been committed with legally and privately owned fully automatic weapons, so I see absolutely no reason why those laws should be revised. Your issue is with the illegally owned guns, and I think that few gun fans would object to enforcement of those laws. I cannot think of any crimes committed with a legally owned RPG. Clearly the regulation for RPGs that is already in place is sufficient.